CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, APRIL
22, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a variance for maximum enclosed garage area requirements in a R4 district for 780 Diley Road.
Mr. Schultz stated the zoning history: Planning and Zoning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage on April 13, 2004. Proposed Use: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot (40-ft x 50-ft) detached garage at the rear of the property (southeast corner). The garage would have access from an existing gravel drive that would be extended. The garage would be constructed of metal with a metal-pitched roof. The garage would be painted to match the house. Analysis: Site Plan - The proposed detached garage meets all the setback requirements. The properties to the east and north have detached garages or barns that are larger than required by the zoning code. These structures where likely constructed prior to the adoption of the City zoning regulations. The barn to the east is approximately 2,400 square feet. This property also has a three-car garage (not sure of size). The size of each of these structures is higher than 15-ft. The property two parcels to the north has an approximate 1,500 square foot barn or garage which is higher than 15-ft. Zoning Issues: In an R4 zoning district, the maximum size for garage area is 720 square feet: The owner is proposing a 2,000 square foot detached garage, The owner presently has an approximate 480 square attached garage, Therefore, the owner will be required to receive a variance for the additional 1,760 square foot of garage area being requested (2,000 + 480 = 2,480 – 720 = 1,760), If approved, the garage must have a continuous foundation per building department regulations. The height limit on a detached garage is 15-ft: The owner is proposing a 15-ft high garage (top of pitched roof). Justification or hardship for variance: Planning & Zoning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a detached garage; the proposed garage would meet zoning setback requirements; the 5.77 acre site is an uncommonly large parcel in an R-4 district (10,000 square foot minimum lot size); such structure would not be out-of-scale like it would be on a parcel of 2 acres or less; properties to the east and north have large garage or barns (approximately 1,500 – 2,400 square feet); the barns and garages to the north and east are higher than 15-ft.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request for a larger than required detached garage if the garage meets setback requirements and the location of the garage does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood with the following conditions: 1. That the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a variance to allow additional detached garage area above 720 square feet. 2. That the garage shall have a continuous foundation per the building department requirements. 3. That the height of the garage shall be not exceed 15-ft. 4. That the garage shall be painted to match the color of the house.
Mrs. Angie McDowell, after being duly sworn, stated she was the applicant in this case. She stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved a conditional use request at their last meeting contingent upon the variance being granted by this Board. She stated it had come to her attention that there was a line of sight issue with the neighbors behind her and she had attempted to contact them regarding that issue. She stated she had spoken with Mr. Smith, but they were unable to reach an agreement. Mrs. McDowell stated she was proposing to maintain a 15-foot setback because in order to extend her driveway all the way back to the building she would like to have it located in that corner. She stated the building would not exceed the maximum height requirement. She stated further she had the property resurveyed and the property lines are now properly marked. Mrs. McDowell stated she felt the location of the building would meet all of the City’s requirements in an R4 area. Mrs. McDowell continued that this is a painted steel building with baked on enamel and has a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years. She stated she does not feel the building would hamper anyone’s line of sight. Mrs. McDowell stated this building should enhance the property.
Mr. Linek asked for any question from the Board – no questions at this time. Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak.
Mr. Carole Smith, after being duly sworn, stated that she is the property owner to the east side (behind). She stated that she felt that the building is very excessive in size and it being metal that it really doesn’t conform to the rest of the buildings surrounding. She stated that it would obstruct their view. She stated they do have the barn in the back that was built in 1900’s. She also stated that they have no objections for them to have an extended garage area but the proposed structure really doesn’t conform to the area.
Mr. Linek asked for any question from the Board – no questions at this time. Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak.
Mr. Mike Allen, after being duly sworn, stated that he is a property owner in at 708 North Star Drive, in the Cherry Hill subdivision. There are 180 houses in the Cherry Hill subdivision, none of them having a metal pole barn garages with 2,000 square feet. He stated that he has not heard any compelling reasons why this request should be granted. He asked what the notification process was. Mr. Schultz stated that the City code only requires that adjacent and contiguous property owners be notified. Smith’s property comprises the south boundary of the subject site, Cherry Hill is not contiguous this property. Mr. Linek verified that this is also posted in the paper. Mr. Schultz stated this was posted in the Lancaster-Eagle Gazette ten (10) days prior to the meeting. Mr. Allen also asked how many other 2,000 square foot buildings are proximal to developments of this size have been granted by this body and if so for what reasons? Mr. Schultz stated that he has been with the City for two and a half (2½) years and that we approved one garage that was approximately 1,200 or 1,300 square feet that was a three-acre lot and had denied a 1,600 square foot garage on an acre lot. Mr. Allen asked if is fair to say that this is the by far largest variance of this type that you’ve considered granting. Mr. Schultz stated yes if approved. Mr. Linek asked Mr. Allen to show him on the aerial where his house was located and so noted that Mr. Allen is relatively close. Mr. Allen stated that he is certainly in line-of-sight of the subject property. Mr. Schultz stated that staff supports the larger structure because the property to the east and two parcels to the north have garages or barns above 2,000 square feet and they are on similar size lots. Mr. Allen asked if the properties to south were even considered. Mr. Schultz stated that Cherry Hill properties are mostly quarter acre lots. I looked at the lots that are the same or nearly the same size lots as to the property in question. Mr. Allen stated that he still wants to know how a 2,000 square foot metal pole barn garage is constant with a bunch of houses in the 2,000 square foot category. Mr. Allen asked as long as that zoning doesn’t change, I don’t understand what the difference is between that and the properties in Cherry Hill.
Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak.
Mr. Pat Smith, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property owner to the east (behind) and Carole Smith’s husband. He stated that their concern is the size of the building. Although you say it is the same size as my wood barn, my barn was built in the early 1900’s and it looks a lot better then a steel pole building that is painted brown. Also a concern is that the building is 15-feet from our driveway. Another concern is that not very many people need a 2,00 square foot building and I can think of a lot of other uses for that building that wouldn’t fall under correct zoning for this property. Mr. Linek asked to see the pictures that Mrs. McDowell provided to identify Mr. Smith’s house. Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak.
Mr. Mark Colburn, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the boyfriend of Mrs. McDowell. He indicated that the Smith’s home sits high enough that line of sight should not be an issue. He stated that the 2,000 square feet building would be used for storage of vehicles and other items. The building will be heated and lighted. Mr. Cline asked that this is not a pole barn. Mr. Schultz stated that it is not a pole barn but a detached garage. It must meet certain building code requirements.
Mr. Smith stated that he didn’t know that the building was going to have gas and electric run to it and that there was going to be security lighting, thus rising another concern as the how this lighting will affect their house. Mr. Schultz stated that the light illuminated towards your house would have to meet maximum foot-candle requirements. Mr. Colburn stated exterior lighting would be a small light beside the doors.
Mr. Linek asked if it is required to have a shingle roof on this type of buildings. Mr. Schultz stated that this Board could set these requirements. Mr. Linek asked the applicant if intended to have a steel or shingled roof? Mrs. McDowell stated that it would be metal roof.
Mr. Cline asked why do you want the garage in the back corner of the property and not closer to your house? Mrs. McDowell stated the property has low spots and it floods and the back corner is at a decent elevation that doesn’t. She also stated this location will allow her to extend her driveway straight back.
Mr. Allen is concerned this site is a wetland. Mr. Schultz stated that the property is not in a FEMA designated flood plain and not sure if there is wetland on the site. Mr. Linek asked if the first request was for conditional use. Mr. Schultz stated yes. Mr. Linek further asked if this letter that she wrote was in response to that. Mr. Schultz stated that the letter is for both the conditional use and variance requests.
Mr. Linek asked if anyone else had anything else to say or others any questions from the Board.
Mr. Borusewksi asked Mr. & Mrs. Smith, is there any one change to this structure that would make you happier about the fact that it is there. The size of this building and the location is just our concern.
Mr. Linek asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Schultz if the variance is just for the size of the building and not the building materials. Mr. Schultz confirmed that it is just for the size and that there are no building material requirements. Mr. Wells also confirmed that there are other buildings in the area of equal or even larger size. Mr. Schultz also confirmed this. Mr. Linek asked where are those buildings and how large are they? Mr. Schultz stated that to the east there is a barn and a three-car garage and two parcels to the north is an approximate 1,500 square foot wood barn. Mr. Linek asked for any other questions or comments from the Board and Mr. Schultz. With there being no further comments or questions Mr. Linek entertained a motion.
Mr. Wells moved to approve: With the following recommendations: 1. That the height of the garage shall be not exceed 15-ft; 2. That the garage shall be setback 15-ft from property lines; 3. That the garage shall not be larger than 2,000 square feet. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Cline, Mr. Borusewski, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Mr. Linek voted “Nay” Motion carried 3-1.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning